Modernism

[AJV]

Which one is Judas?

None I imagine since he was replaced by St. Matthias.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

You’re right, Malcolm, that is exactly what I would expect to hear from a modernist.

What about this picture, where the architect says the twelve pillars in the sanctuary are the twelve apostles? Would you say that is the art of a modernist?

Yes. The problem is that the pillars don’t genuinely bear any weight. To design a building with pillars holding up the roof, and make the number of pillars sum to twelve to represent the apostles, would not be modernist.

To place 12 superfluous pillars, which don’t have any technical artistic merit - they are not carved into human shapes or anything similar - in the sanctuary is an act of arrogance, and thus typically modernist work.

 

[LilyM]

Yes. The problem is that the pillars don’t genuinely bear any weight. To design a building with pillars holding up the roof, and make the number of pillars sum to twelve to represent the apostles, would not be modernist.

To place 12 superfluous pillars, which don’t have any technical artistic merit - they are not carved into human shapes or anything similar - in the sanctuary is an act of arrogance, and thus typically modernist work.

What is arrogant about it? That they’re superfluous? So, probably, are some of the pillars supporting the colonnade in St Peters’ Square - does it matter?

and what about the fact that the pillars aren’t carved into human shapes makes them devoid of merit? Neither is the dome of St Peter’s, you’d not deny that that has merit - as a piece of architectural design if not a work of art

And who says those pillars are intended to be art rather than an architectural feature anyway?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

What is arrogant about it? That they’re superfluous?

Superfluous, therefore their only merit is aesthetic. Arrogant if that merit is in fact lacking.
Modernism is all about ugly, easy, trivial work being passed off as profound art.

 

[LilyM]

Superfluous, therefore their only merit is aesthetic. Arrogant if that merit is in fact lacking.
Modernism is all about ugly, easy, trivial work being passed off as profound art.

But again, what makes you say that those pillars have no aesthetic merit whereas the (presumably also superfluous or partially so) pillars supporting the colonnade of St Peter’s do??? What makes you think that the one is ‘easier’ or more ‘trivial’ - or even ‘uglier’? Those are entirely subjective judgements.

 

[AquinaSavio]

“Nor do we merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies, or what is called the spirit, of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savors of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties… The law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: let there be no innovation: keep to what has been handed down.” ~ Pope Benedict XV

 

[paramedicgirl]

But again, what makes you say that those pillars have no aesthetic merit whereas the (presumably also superfluous or partially so) pillars supporting the colonnade of St Peter’s do??? What makes you think that the one is ‘easier’ or more ‘trivial’ - or even ‘uglier’? Those are entirely subjective judgements.

Lily, are you saying that you see aesthetic beauty in these pillars? Do you honestly believe they enhance the sanctuary where the Sacred Mysteries take place?

 

[rwoehmke]

Seems to me that there is more than a little confusion here. Modernism as addressed by Pius X is a set of heresies or philosophies that have their roots in the Enlightenment. It has nothing to do with so called modern art. Pius X used the term like Benedict XVI used the term Relativism. In context it has a fairly specific meaning. I don’t understand nor do I find “modernism” in the world of Art and Architecture to be particularly pleasing, but it has nothing to do with Pius’ condemnation.

 

[ChristopherM]

I think modernism is a problem, but I do think this thread ventured off to art and it was not its intentions…

Are we Fighting a heresy called modernism? - YES
that is that anything “OLD” is “BAD” and anything “NEW” is “GOOD”
mostly in the form of sex on TV, abortion, Birth Control, and other various politics

is Modern art the Problem - Probably not, but its not a solution.

something strikes me, as this church was being built during VII why was it designed this way?

how did they know the altar would be freestanding apart from the wall?
the entire building of the church looks protestant - how did they know that Post VII that this church would be the norm?

I just find it strange, that during these times of the “Modernism Heresy” some have chosen to dumb down some pretty big parts of the faith, such as confession, communion on the tongue, etc…

when we need the fullness of faith the most why are most parish’s lacking

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Seems to me that there is more than a little confusion here. Modernism as addressed by Pius X is a set of heresies or philosophies that have their roots in the Enlightenment. It has nothing to do with so called modern art. Pius X used the term like Benedict XVI used the term Relativism. In context it has a fairly specific meaning. I don’t understand nor do I find “modernism” in the world of Art and Architecture to be particularly pleasing, but it has nothing to do with Pius’ condemnation.

Ideological movements also create their own art. In the case of modernism it is particularly ugly, arrogant, and trite art. In the case of Romanticism, which was also an anti-Catholic movement, the art was considerably better. Aesthetic quality is not an infallible guide to virtue, but it is no a useless one either.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Ideological movements also create their own art. In the case of modernism it is particularly ugly, arrogant, and trite art. In the case of Romanticism, which was also an anti-Catholic movement, the art was considerably better. Aesthetic quality is not an infallible guide to virtue, but it is no a useless one either.

Here’s a good post on modern art from Abbey Roads blog. Terry has a pretty good summary, I think, of architectural style and when it started to affect the Church, which actually was prior to VII.